that's the transbay plan we've all been raving about, joel. it's redevelopment, mostly of the old embarcadero freeway ROW, to fund the new transbay terminal (long, low bldg in white at center), it's been surprisingly well-received, and as redevelopment it's more or less exempt from the usual process anyway - so it's going to happen. the only real open question is the height of the landmark tower in front of the terminal. the plan made the case for a tower roughly as tall as transamerica (853ft) to provide a focal point for the new, south-of-market skyline. in that rendering, tho, it's closer to the existing height limit of 550ft.

might also mention that just below that is rincon hill, where the planning dept is pushing a half-dozen highrises up to 550ft. that plan's reception has been more mixed, but a quartet of 400 and 350ft towers was just approved, so SF is going to get a number of decent-sized (anyway) new towers in SOMA over the coming years.

that's the transbay plan we've all been raving about, joel. it's redevelopment, mostly of the old embarcadero freeway ROW, to fund the new transbay terminal (long, low bldg in white at center), it's been surprisingly well-received, and as redevelopment it's more or less exempt from the usual process anyway - so it's going to happen. the only real open question is the height of the landmark tower in front of the terminal. the plan made the case for a tower roughly as tall as transamerica (853ft) to provide a focal point for the new, south-of-market skyline. in that rendering, tho, it's closer to the existing height limit of 550ft.

might also mention that just below that is rincon hill, where the planning dept is pushing a half-dozen highrises up to 550ft. that plan's reception has been more mixed, but a quartet of 400 and 350ft towers was just approved, so SF is going to get a number of decent-sized (anyway) new towers in SOMA over the coming years.

tekno, it's a lowrise hotel.

Yeah, I know its nothing new but I personally hadn't seen that render before so I thought I'd post it. SoMa desperately needs a peak to its skyline and I think that render really shows why that's the place for it.

To me, what's shocking about this whole development is that lack of any serious local opposition. Although, if I were a planner I'd try to get that under-construction before too many apartments get occupied in the area.

Has the SF office market picked-up at all? Its still somewhat soft here.

this has probably come up in the WTC board, but if you don't mind my asking, just quickly: is there any concern that the new WTC will flood the office market? or conversely, will it improve downtown's position relative to jersey city, et al.

The only people that seem to be worried that it'll flood the market are other real estate developers. Personally, I don't think its a competitor to midtown, more likely Jersey City and Brooklyn. In any case it'll becoming on line between 2008-2012 and that's if all goes to plan. NY can easily absorb 1.5 million sq. ft. a year.

It might even be nice if rents were a bit cheaper (guess who's complaining that might happen) and NY could attract some new business.

Speaking of office growth, I'm curious to see where San Francisco plans to add office space once the economy rebounds in 5 years. The FiDi is all built out, and the areas south of Market like Transbay and Rincon Hill are going to be filled with residential towers. I wonder if Civic Center and Van Ness/ Market are going to be used as a secondary CBD.

415 remember there is alot of office space that was supposed to be built at Mission Bay. It still needs to be built and it is approved already so any office space will probably be built there or @ 555 mission

I have a feeling that 555 Mission's entitlements will be pulled before its built. A residential or mixed use tower will probably go in its place. Although 555 Mission Street was a dignified design, it only reached 482'. If you look at the height limits for the area, the site is zoned for 550' (or as J Church has pointed out, 700+' with crowns and setbacks).

On a side note here, the entitlements for 535 Mission Street have been pulled, and a new residential proposal is in the works.

Speaking of office growth, I'm curious to see where San Francisco plans to add office space once the economy rebounds in 5 years. The FiDi is all built out, and the areas south of Market like Transbay and Rincon Hill are going to be filled with residential towers. I wonder if Civic Center and Van Ness/ Market are going to be used as a secondary CBD.

I was totally thinking about this the other day, but then I saw the post from J Church about how high office vacancy was I decided that the demand SF office high rises weren't in high demand. But in the future it seems pretty fair to assume that Civic Center and Van Ness will be the next areas to grow, but won't they face much stricter height and bulk requirements up there than in the FiDi?

__________________
"This will not be known as the Times Square of the West," City Council President Alex Padilla declared last week. "Times Square will be known as the L.A. Live of the East."

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."

On a side note here, the entitlements for 535 Mission Street have been pulled, and a new residential proposal is in the works.

where'd you get that, tony?

working for the Planning Department has its perks...

as for any potential towers at Market/ Van Ness, I can easily see the Planning Department arguing for a 450'-500' tower at one of the corners of Market/ Van Ness. A landmark tower should anchor that important innersection.